Category Archives: Patentability

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. (“TT”) v. IBG LLC et al. (US as intervenor)

Docket No. 2017-2257, -2621, 2018-1063 CBM Nos. 2015-00179, 2016-00051, 2016-00032 MOORE, MAYER, LINN April 18, 2019 Brief summary: Board finding that TT’s patents are CBM eligible (e.g., claims are not “for technological inventions”) and patent ineligible (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharm. et al. and Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2017-1240, -1455, -1887 WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for ineligibility under § 101 since “the claims are directed to a patent-eligible method of using oxymorphone…to treat pain in a renally … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

SRI Int., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2223 LOURIE (D), O’MALLEY, STOLL March 20, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of patent eligibility under § 101 affirmed; award of attorney fees vacated and remanded “solely for recalculation”. Summary: Cisco appealed DC denial of its motion for … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Patentability, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Natural Alternatives Int., Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC

Docket No. 2018-1295 MOORE, REYNA (C/D), WALLACH March 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding that NA’s claims related to dietary supplements are not patent eligible under § 101 reversed and remanded. Summary: Natural Alternatives (NA) appealed DC grant of Creative … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

University of Florida Res. Found., Inc. (UFRF) v. General Electric Co. et al.

Docket No. 2018-1284 PROST, MOORE, WALLACH February 26, 2019 Brief summary: UFRF found to have “waived sovereign immunity as to GE’s § 101 eligibility challenge”. DC grant of GE’s motion to dismiss based on its § 101 defense to infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC

Docket No. 2017-2508 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL February 6, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding that method claims relating to a correlation between antibodies to a protein (“MuSK”) and neurological disorders are invalid under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Athena (as exclusive … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

In Re: Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

Docket No. 2017-2465 CHEN, MAYER, BRYSON December 28, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision affirming the rejection of certain claims relating to a method of playing a dice game under § 101 affirmed (“printed matter” (“the only arguably unconventional aspect”) “fall[s] … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment